SITAPUR EYE HOSPITAL TRUST Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1786 of 2019 dated 27.06.2019. The appellant herein filed the said writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure that the on-going demarcation exercise, in respect of the appellant-writ petitioner's land situated in Sri Nagar, Uttarakhand, is taken to its logical conclusion after ensuring deputation of sufficient security personnel at the site; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure that no undue interference is caused in the activity of the eye care facility at Sri Nagar, Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand.

(2.) The appellant-writ petitioner claims to be a Trust running a charitable hospital, and to be the owner of the land of an extent of 43 Nalis and 8 mutthis at Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal. The said hospital is said to be non-functional, but to be in the process of re-starting. Since there was a dispute with the local villagers, an application was filed by the appellant-writ petitioner under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 pursuant to which demarcation orders were passed. However, when the actual exercise of demarcation was being undertaken on the 09th and 10th of March, 2019, certain villagers are said to have intervened, resulting in the Revenue Inspector expressing his inability to demarcate the land, and stating that, unless police protection was extended, the exercise of demarcation could not be undertaken. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that this Court could not examine such a matter straightaway in a writ petition; if the petitioner had any grievance, his remedy was to approach the higher revenue authorities; if any person was trying to cause any hindrance to the appellant-writ petitioner, he was always at liberty to initiate criminal proceedings; and the writ petition was not an appropriate remedy at that stage. Holding that no interference was called for, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.